W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org > August 2007

Re: Remarks on W3C Editor's Draft 6 August 2007

From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 16:54:09 +0100
Message-ID: <46C47321.2060703@jenitennison.com>
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org

Norman Walsh wrote:
> / Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.org> was heard to say:
> | All of the options that are boolean for the step library need to be
> | reworked slightly to make sure they allow the value "true" and "false" as well.
> Yes, and I don't know what to say about steps that generate true or false answers.
> I'm inclined to say "yes" and "no", but only because it's more consistent with
> what we had historically.

I think it's going to be very hard for people to use options that have 
yes/no values, because creating yes or no from XPath expressions is 

For example, how would you do the following pseudo-code.

   <p:option name="all" select="...if /test then 'yes' else 'no'..." />

(I know how to do it -- you use substring() on 'yesno' and rely on 
conversion of true to 1 -- I just think it's unreasonable for authors to 
have to do that.)

I think we should switch to using 'true'/'false' everywhere for option 
values, since that's what boolean true/false get converted to as 
strings. If we do that, it makes sense (to me) to switch to true/false 


Jeni Tennison
Received on Thursday, 16 August 2007 15:54:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:32:44 UTC